In the McCormick v. Oklahoma City case of 1914, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of John McCormick, a property owner who had sued Oklahoma City over an assessment for street improvements that he claimed was excessive and unfair. The city had assessed his property at $10 per front foot for paving work on a nearby street, which amounted to more than half its value. McCormick argued this violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights because it deprived him of his property without due process and equal protection under the law. The court agreed with McCormick's argument that such an exorbitant levy constituted confiscation rather than taxation. It held that while municipalities have broad powers to assess properties for public improvements like roadworks, these assessments must be fair and proportional to the benefit received by each affected property owner. This ruling set important precedents regarding local government taxing authority and constitutional protections against arbitrary or unreasonable tax levies.

In the dissenting opinion for McCormick v. Oklahoma City, it was argued that the city's action of condemning a strip of land for public use without providing just compensation to its owner violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The justice believed that while cities have the right to take private property for public use under eminent domain laws, they must provide fair and adequate compensation in return. In this case, he felt that Oklahoma City had failed to do so when it took over part of McCormick's land to widen a street. He also disagreed with how damages were assessed by considering benefits from improvements made on other parts of his property which were not directly affected by condemnation proceedings as offsetting losses incurred due to taking away part of his land.